fanatical Buddhists

[ralis]

To say that the Buddha understood the workings of the cosmos is perhaps a false argument. Given the possibility that he was a believer in a flat earth.

 

 

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

Edited July 17, 2011 by ralis

[Marblehead]

To say that the Buddha understood the workings of the cosmos is perhaps a false argument. Given the possibility that he was a believer in a flat earth.

 

 

I've known some flat-chested women.

 

(Sorry. That's what came to my mind when reading your post.)

 

 

Hi back at cha' Bob.

[Vajrahridaya]

To say that the Buddha understood the workings of the cosmos is perhaps a false argument. Given the possibility that he was a believer in a flat earth.

 

 

http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

That's merely your assumption. We can't make a safe assumption either way. So it's a mute point. The man talked about cycles, circles, and his understanding was very spherical. So, I'd guess the opposite. That's just me though.

[goldisheavy]

Maybe one of the impressive things about Taoism and Buddhism is that in China they managed to co-exist and inspire each other.

 

Although from what I read there was also a lot of rivalry and it wasn't always the friendly kind. I agree that generally all these diverse (or really not all that diverse perhaps) views coexist in modern China, perhaps because nobody takes any of them very seriously. Materialism is huge in China right now. Again that's based on the news reports I watch and read. If someone in China wants to contradict me, please do. I'd love to hear various different opinions.

Edited July 17, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Apech]

Although from what I read there was also a lot of rivalry and it wasn't always the friendly kind. I agree that generally all these diverse (or really not all that diverse perhaps) views coexist in modern China, perhaps because nobody takes any of them very seriously. Materialism is huge in China right now. Again that's based on the news reports I watch and read. If someone in China wants to contradict me, please do. I'd love to hear various different opinions.

 

Ah well, I still like to dream that some people somewhere can have different views and yet co-exist and inspire each other. Maybe not in ancient China, maybe only in the distant future. But I am dreamer.

[Marblehead]

Ah well, I still like to dream that some people somewhere can have different views and yet co-exist and inspire each other. Maybe not in ancient China, maybe only in the distant future. But I am dreamer.

 

Yeah, maybe one day the Jews and Arabs will get along peacefully.

[goldisheavy]

Yeah, maybe one day the Jews and Arabs will get along peacefully.

 

Imagine if my doctrine told me to kill people like you because you don't believe the same things as me? And imagine if my doctrine told me that if I stopped believing in my own doctrine, I were to be killed? What kind of relationship would I have with you? I'll tell you from my own knowledge of this: at best, a pretentious one, where I pretend to be your friend while in my hearts of hearts I believe your kind needs to be converted or killed off in the long term.

 

Until this issue is addressed head on we can't make any lasting progress toward peace.

Edited July 17, 2011 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Ah well, I still like to dream that some people somewhere can have different views and yet co-exist and inspire each other. Maybe not in ancient China, maybe only in the distant future. But I am dreamer.

 

On many issues we can agree to disagree. But there are some issues where it is impossible, for example, if my doctrine tells me people like you should be killed, I doubt you'll be willing to respect that.

[Apech]

Yeah, maybe one day the Jews and Arabs will get along peacefully.

 

They did before the state of Israel was created there are many testimonies to this effect that I have seen on TV documentaries about the history of the Middle East.

 

But I have to say you are right to be cynical.

 

As I say, I like to dream nice dreams.

[Marblehead]

They did before the state of Israel was created there are many testimonies to this effect that I have seen on TV documentaries about the history of the Middle East.

 

That is true. Sad the way all that turned out.

[Vajrahridaya]

Btw, your lack of understanding of Hinduism regardless of a lot of past involvement in it does not make your final type conclusions regarding it universal truisms or valid in any way except to your self.

 

Actually no. My view of Hinduism is valid according to hindu "shruti". I've studied a lot and meditated a lot on the meanings. I've read a lot of autobiographies of traditional Hindu masters, maybe even more than you. I've also experienced initiation into Kundalini Tantra from a Master of Kundalini Shakti within that tradition.

 

I've read the Maharamayana, otherwise known as Vasisthas Yoga as translated by Venkatesananda, amongst many of his other books including many of his translations of shruti, and he was a wonderful being, a dear friend of one of my main hindu teachers teacher. The Vasistha's yoga is one of the largest books in the world in it's original sanskrit. Anyway, it gives all the valid points within Hindu philosophy from Vedic to Trika Shaivism.

 

Also, plenty of great Buddhist scholars of India were scholars and yogis in Hinduism first, both common and mystical forms before becoming Buddhist, and they deconstructed it very, very thoroughly. This list does include Nagarjuna. Not to mention the Buddha as well. There are plenty on this list of the 84 Mahasiddhas that are pryer and post Shankaras Advaita Vedanta that talk about Vedanta as an elaboration on how to become a god in a long lived realm or formless bliss realm, but not complete Buddhahood. I've read all the Upanishads, most all the Puranas, plenty of the Vedas, autobiographies and biographies from or of hindu siddhas. I've read lots of Shankaras works, Jnaneshwars works. The list is pretty exhuastive from north to south indian versions of Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta, even to the Siddhars of Tamil Nadhu.

 

Experientially, I know what the endgame is of Hinduism as well as the realizations which it's cosmology reflects.

 

Direct insight into dependent origination cuts through and empties all of it as an authority on Buddhahood. All that I listed above on Hinduism and plenty more that I've read with avid attention to detail is an authority for becoming a living "god" though, both on Earth and beyond until the end of a cosmic aeon when lord Shiva or the power of re-absorption, obliterates all the hindu siddha realms, including Siddhaloka reverting all the energies surrounding that paradigm into a pralaya. This is all in your Hindu scriptures.

 

p.s. So what if I don't believe your tradition to be complete? This is an open board. Would you not debate with someone who came in here and thought that his idea of the Bible rationalizing his affiliation with the KKK was complete? Of course your view is not that extreme, but why not be here and challenge different views? My views are challenged all the time. It's fine, it gives me a chance to clarify, to elaborate more, both for my sake and the sake of others that are interested. Those that are not, and like your view better, will go for that, regardless of what I say. That's just the way it is. My view of Hinduism and the conditions of limitation it sets on it's Siddhas is not merely my own, it's backed by countless scholars and Buddhist adepts of antiquity. It's not some made up thing.

Edited July 18, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[thuscomeone]

Oh!, yes I do.

 

(And no, I'm still not a Buddhist. Hehehe.)

Well that post was directed at goldisheavy.

 

But it's good that there is someone here who is sane.

 

P.S. Your posts always lift my spirits!

[Marblehead]

Well that post was directed at goldisheavy.

 

But it's good that there is someone here who is sane.

 

P.S. Your posts always lift my spirits!

 

Thank you!!!

 

I didn't even know you were reading them.

[3bob]

Actually no. My view of Hinduism is valid according to hindu "shruti". I've studied a lot and meditated a lot on the meanings. I've read a lot of autobiographies of traditional Hindu masters, maybe even more than you. I've also experienced initiation into Kundalini Tantra from a Master of Kundalini Shakti within that tradition.

 

I've read the Maharamayana, otherwise known as Vasisthas Yoga as translated by Venkatesananda, amongst many of his other books including many of his translations of shruti, and he was a wonderful being, a dear friend of one of my main hindu teachers teacher. The Vasistha's yoga is one of the largest books in the world in it's original sanskrit. Anyway, it gives all the valid points within Hindu philosophy from Vedic to Trika Shaivism.

 

Also, plenty of great Buddhist scholars of India were scholars and yogis in Hinduism first, both common and mystical forms before becoming Buddhist, and they deconstructed it very, very thoroughly. This list does include Nagarjuna. Not to mention the Buddha as well. There are plenty on this list of the 84 Mahasiddhas that are pryer and post Shankaras Advaita Vedanta that talk about Vedanta as an elaboration on how to become a god in a long lived realm or formless bliss realm, but not complete Buddhahood. I've read all the Upanishads, most all the Puranas, plenty of the Vedas, autobiographies and biographies from or of hindu siddhas. I've read lots of Shankaras works, Jnaneshwars works. The list is pretty exhuastive from north to south indian versions of Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta, even to the Siddhars of Tamil Nadhu.

 

Experientially, I know what the endgame is of Hinduism as well as the realizations which it's cosmology reflects.

 

Direct insight into dependent origination cuts through and empties all of it as an authority on Buddhahood. All that I listed above on Hinduism and plenty more that I've read with avid attention to detail is an authority for becoming a living "god" though, both on Earth and beyond until the end of a cosmic aeon when lord Shiva or the power of re-absorption, obliterates all the hindu siddha realms, including Siddhaloka reverting all the energies surrounding that paradigm into a pralaya. This is all in your Hindu scriptures.

 

p.s. So what if I don't believe your tradition to be complete? This is an open board. Would you not debate with someone who came in here and thought that his idea of the Bible rationalizing his affiliation with the KKK was complete? Of course your view is not that extreme, but why not be here and challenge different views? My views are challenged all the time. It's fine, it gives me a chance to clarify, to elaborate more, both for my sake and the sake of others that are interested. Those that are not, and like your view better, will go for that, regardless of what I say. That's just the way it is. My view of Hinduism and the conditions of limitation it sets on it's Siddhas is not merely my own, it's backed by countless scholars and Buddhist adepts of antiquity. It's not some made up thing.

 

False understandings gives false representations, false projections gives false extrapolations and

minor assumptions proceed to major presumptions. I'm not along for your ride and you don't know anything my tradition or lack of. Btw, your line and related ramblings of "is an authority for becoming a living "god"" is hogwash.

 

Om

[JustARandomPanda]

Insight is not permanent. If insight was permanent there is no way it could be developed or realized.

 

I have wondered about this too. As there are long passages in the Shurangama Sutra where the Buddha talks about this or that extremely highly realized master hitting a certain insight, concluding something about it and then the Buddha goes on to say that it is a wrong view.

 

 

Example:

 

 

"The Buddha told Ananda, "The essential, true, wonderful brightness and perfect purity of basic enlightenment does not admit birth and death nor any mundane defilements, nor even empty space itself. All these are brought forth because of false thinking. The source of basic enlightenment, which is wonderfully bright, true, and pure, falsely gives rise to the material world, just as Vajnadatta became confused about his head when he saw his own reflection.

 

The falseness basically has no cause, but in your false thinking, you set up causes and conditions. But those who are confused about the principle of causes and conditions call it spontaneity. Even empty space is an illusory creation; how much the more so are causes and conditions and spontaneity, which are mere speculations made by the false minds of living beings.

 

Ananda, if you perceive the arising of falseness, you can speak of the causes and conditions of that falseness. But if the falseness has no source, you will have to say that the causes and conditions of that falseness basically have no source. How much the more is this the case for those who fail to understand and advocate spontaneity.

 

Therefore, the Tathagata has explained to you that the fundamental cause of all five skandhas is false thinking."

[JustARandomPanda]

Heart mind is not your exclusive property or the property of Buddhists.

 

From what little I've studied of it Sufis teach about Heartmind too. Honestly I'm really clueless about what this "Heartmind that is beyond words" is all about.

 

GiH says to forget texts cause I've already got it. If I've already got it what is there to investigate? Doesn't that mean we are expressing Heartmind every moment that we draw breath - especially if it's the Core of our Being as GiH maintains?

 

This is WHY when I read on these boards about Heartmind I get the sense it is something "other". As in - other than my ordinary, run-of-the-mill, everyday me. And it's confusing to hear we have it but it can not be talked about. OTH talking about it reinforces the idea in me that it is something "other" too - like maybe some sort of highly specialized state.

 

So EITHER way I turn - whether I go with the dudes saying it can not be expressed by words or the dudes who say it can - I still get this sense from both camps that Heartmind is "other" than ordinary, non-meditating me. Apparently one has to do assorted meditation practices in order to uncover it?! WTF?

[C T]

From what little I've studied of it Sufis teach about Heartmind too. Honestly I'm really clueless about what this "Heartmind that is beyond words" is all about.

 

GiH says to forget texts cause I've already got it. If I've already got it what is there to investigate? Doesn't that mean we are expressing Heartmind every moment that we draw breath - especially if it's the Core of our Being as GiH maintains?

 

This is WHY when I read on these boards about Heartmind I get the sense it is something "other". As in - other than my ordinary, run-of-the-mill, everyday me. And it's confusing to hear we have it but it can not be talked about. OTH talking about it reinforces the idea in me that it is something "other" too - like maybe some sort of highly specialized state.

 

So EITHER way I turn - whether I go with the dudes saying it can not be expressed by words or the dudes who say it can - I still get this sense from both camps that Heartmind is "other" than ordinary, non-meditating me. Apparently one has to do assorted meditation practices in order to uncover it?! WTF?

You are picturing two containers - one muddied and the other clear... would this create an imagined split, i wonder. There is always only one perpetually clear state, like there is one sky.

 

What specialized state? Its about being mindfully aware and settling thoughts into their own nature, which is clear, yet vivid. Its not a separate state, or a more evolved state.

 

Discursive thoughts arise and with it arises dualistic, deluded mind. As these thoughts settle, ordinary awareness does not diminish with the settling, it becomes more apparent. This apparent awareness is your true nature. Not something that wasn't there to begin with. One does not need to 'grow' it - meditative exercises re-connects the being to this intrinsic pure Mind where its grasping nature gradually settles back into its own luminous ground, which is fundamentally empty, yet cognizant. (remember the onion? Peeling it to its core reveals what?)

 

The analogy of a recovering amnesiac may ring a bell here. Thru meditation, one re-familiarizes with one's original Mind beyond pure or impure, like the sky.

[Vajrahridaya]

your line and related ramblings of "is an authority for becoming a living "god"" is hogwash.

 

Om

 

Not according to the Hindu scriptures.

 

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with becoming a living god, filled with love, powers of perception beyond the ordinary, filled with compassion, tireless energy and inspiration.

 

It's a very good place to be. Many Buddhists could only hope to attain such an exalted state while living.

 

It's just not Buddhahood is all.

[3bob]

Not according to the Hindu scriptures.

 

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with becoming a living god, filled with love, powers of perception beyond the ordinary, filled with compassion, tireless energy and inspiration.

 

It's a very good place to be. Many Buddhists could only hope to attain such an exalted state while living.

 

It's just not Buddhahood is all.

 

Sruti points to moksha as key, and not the sojourn or attainment of a god. Btw, it was not enough for Indra to be a god. One can get mixed up in the a-z conundrums of various schools of Hinduism just as they can mixed up in the a-z conundrums of various schools of Buddhism and other traditions, but moksha is still key.

 

Om

[3bob]

From what little I've studied of it Sufis teach about Heartmind too. Honestly I'm really clueless about what this "Heartmind that is beyond words" is all about.

 

GiH says to forget texts cause I've already got it. If I've already got it what is there to investigate? Doesn't that mean we are expressing Heartmind every moment that we draw breath - especially if it's the Core of our Being as GiH maintains?

 

This is WHY when I read on these boards about Heartmind I get the sense it is something "other". As in - other than my ordinary, run-of-the-mill, everyday me. And it's confusing to hear we have it but it can not be talked about. OTH talking about it reinforces the idea in me that it is something "other" too - like maybe some sort of highly specialized state.

 

So EITHER way I turn - whether I go with the dudes saying it can not be expressed by words or the dudes who say it can - I still get this sense from both camps that Heartmind is "other" than ordinary, non-meditating me. Apparently one has to do assorted meditation practices in order to uncover it?! WTF?

 

"WTF" we have a mountain of work to do, and even those that have gone before can only point the way and maybe give a hand here and there, all the rest is on us. "uncover" is on track.

[Vajrahridaya]

Sruti points to moksha as key, and not the sojourn or attainment of a god. Btw, it was not enough for Indra to be a god. One can get mixed up in the a-z conundrums of various schools of Hinduism just as they can mixed up in the a-z conundrums of various schools of Buddhism and other traditions, but moksha is still key.

 

Om

Yes, but how is Moksha defined in Hinduism?